T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
672 F.3d 259
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- T-Mobile sought to extend a Dominion Power pole from 100 to 110 feet and attach three panel antennas near Fairfax County near Evermay residential area.
- Planning Commission staff recommended approval as conforming with Virginia Code §15.2-2232 and the county plan; the Planning Commission denied the facility for visual impact and plan conformance.
- The Board denied both the application and a separate request for a special exception, citing lack of conformance with the county plan and zoning standards.
- T-Mobile filed suit under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v), alleging violations of the Act’s prohibition and discrimination provisions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board, and T-Mobile appealed, challenging both the prohibition (B)(i)(II) and discrimination (B)(i)(I) claims.
- There is a concurrent dispute over whether a 2009 FCC declaratory ruling affects the standard of review for prohibition claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prohibition claim standard applied | T-Mobile argues prohibition can be shown by a single site denial as a “tantamount” prohibition. | Board argues prohibition requires a blanket ban or a demonstrable effective absence with no reasonable alternatives. | Prohibition claim rejected; district court’s judgment affirmed. |
| Discrimination claim viability | T-Mobile contends Board discriminated against it relative to Verizon/AT&T based on aesthetic impact. | Board's decision rested on traditional zoning principles and differences in the proposals; no unreasonable discrimination.held | Discrimination claim upheld for Board; district court affirmed. |
| FCC ruling impact | FCC 2009 ruling requires new standard for prohibition claims and should affect review. | FCC ruling does not alter Albemarle County framework or the circuit’s approach to § 332(c)(7)(B). | FCC ruling does not affect the analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 1998) (established framework for prohibitions and case-by-case analysis; absence of blanket ban)
- USCOC of Virginia RSA# 3, Inc. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Supervisors, 343 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2003) (lack of reasonable alternatives; feasibility as prong of prohibition)
- 360° Communications Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79 (4th Cir. 2000) (heavy burden for prohibition; significant gap/absence framework)
- Albemarle County, 360° Communications Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albemarle County, 211 F.3d 79 (4th Cir. 2000) (reaffirmed two-prong prohibition analysis and heavy burden)